- From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 16:33:36 -0800
- To: "public-orca@w3.org" <public-orca@w3.org>
Bernard asked me what I thought the RTCRtpCapabilities should look
like. Here's what I think they should look like:
dictionary RTCRtpCapabilities {
sequence<RTCRtpCodec> audioCodecs;
sequence<RTCRtpCodec> videoCodecs;
sequence<DOMString> headerExtensions; // Just the URIs
sequence<RTCRtpFeatures> features;
}
dictionary RTCRtpCodec {
DOMString name; // aka MIME media type
int? clockrate;
int? channels;
sequence<KeyValueParam> formatParameters;
}
dictionary KeyValueParam {
DOMString key;
DOMString value;
};
enum RTCRtpFeatures {
"nack", // from RFC 4585,
// ...
}
This is a lot like the existing RTCCodec, with the following notable
differences:
- There are two lists of codecs: one audio and one video. I suppose
we could mix them together, but I think it's more convenient this way.
- The RTCCodec doesn't have a specific payload type, because that's
not part of a "capability".
- There are header extensions in the capabilities.
- There are "rtp features" in the capabilities, with a list we can
expand on later.
It still lacks RED and FEC, though, and I think we'd want to nail down
how those would fit into the RTCRtpCapabilities. Are they an
RTCRtpFeature, or a new dictionary type?
In short, it's an expansion of the existing RTCCodec to match the new
RtpSender/RtpReceiver model.
Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2014 00:34:47 UTC